A Human Rights and Legal Analysis of the Understanding Our Roots Report
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In October 2023, the University released Understanding Our Roots - Nstikuk tan wtapeksikw Report written by the Task Force on Settler Misappropriation of Indigenous Identity. The Report recommends the creation of a Standing Committee who would verify claims to Indigenous identity by students, faculty and staff seeking to benefit from any opportunity at the University that prioritizes access for Indigenous peoples, as well as investigate and recommend sanction in cases of suspected academic fraud whereby an individual assumes an Indigenous identity. The Report does not address or respond to potential legal issues and rights violations arising from its recommendation. To our knowledge, no legal analysis has been conducted on the implications of the proposed verification process. In the hopes of encouraging more nuance and circumspection on this issue we offer the following analysis, informed by our respective areas of expertise.\nOur concerns about the Report can be distilled into the following: The Task Force was comprised of members unqualified in the historical and legal complexity of Indigenous identity; The Task Force’s engagement process may have violated research ethics, was grossly inadequate in both scope and timeline, and may be in breach of procedural fairness standards; The proposed verification process conflates self-identification and uncertainty over Indigenous identity with academic fraud; The proposed verification process is underinclusive and discriminatory by overlooking several categories of Indigenous people who have legitimate, legally-supported claims to being Indigenous, including the large and growing Non-Status First Nation population in the region, and members of Indigenous collectives like NunatuKavut Community Council and the Peskotomuhkati Nation at Skutik; The proposed verification process fails to support Indigenous self-determination over identity because it centers Indigenous identity on official federal government recognition, which is not in keeping with constitutional law, domestic and international human rights, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; The proposed verification process exposes Dalhousie to liability, including in relation to labour, employment, and human rights law; Implementation of the verification criteria is already occurring without appropriate review and legal analysis; The verification process will actively cause harm to Indigenous students, faculty, and staff and compromise current and planned work; and The University already has all the necessary tools to address situations of academic fraud of Indigenous identity, as well as to respond to the distinct concern of privileging individuals whose self-identification as Indigenous rests solely on having distant ancestry over those with legitimate, legally-supported claims to being Indigenous. Thus, no new process is necessary.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,038 | 0,067 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,021 | 0,029 |
| Communication savante | 0,021 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,013 | 0,021 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».